I am excited that Pioneer anomaly is an exotic vacuum hedgehog exotic vacuum defect. I am the first to understand this. I am indebted to Tony Smith for pointing out that the exotic vacuum halo had to have a hole in it. He did not see however that it was a dark energy point defect in the Higgs Ocean that tells us something important about the topology of the macro-quantum vacuum coherence.

In the beginning was THE WORD.

THE WORD MADE FLESH.

WORD = BIT

FLESH = IT

"All things that mooue betweene the quiet poles
Shalbe at my commaund, Emperours and Kings,
Are but obeyd in their seuerall prouinces:
Nor can they raise the winde, or rend the cloudes:
But his dominion that exceedes in this,
Stretcheth as farre as doth the minde of man.
A sound Magician is a mighty god:
Heere Faustus trie thy braines to gaine a deitie."
Christopher Marlowe Dr. Faustus in the original Elizabethan English as actually performed in Shakespeare's Day

On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:50 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

On Oct 21, 2004, at 2:15 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack, this is supposed to be a two-man Catskill Vaudeville routine, with me as the
sraight man.

Don't drop the shtick.

I think it's entertaining and educational.

OK.

You have to make clear. I think you are only proposing a change in the informal language with no mathematical changes at all. Yes? No?

See my last public message. According to this, view, there would be no significant difference between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories of electrodynamics (Lorentz vs. Einstein ca. 1905).

This is globally flat special relativity not locally curved general relativity. So what is your point here?

Actually, in my model the math is only "the same" up to an isomorphism between two very differently defined sets of transformations.

This is too vague.

Of course *this* is vague. I'll explain the details in my paper.

Are you talking globally flat special relativity or what? Are you saying the Poincare group is no good? You are being too obscure here.

You'll have to wait.

If there were world enough and time: meanwhile Einstein's theory passes every test - today gravi-magnetism frame drag and Yilmaz-type theories fail every test beyond the 3 trivial ones that are no test at all contrary to Hal's claim about PV. I mean passing them is no great triumph at all since GR already did it.

All that matters in the new cosmology is

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

only if you change that will there be anything important practically speaking.

Right now philosophical discussions of what informal picture to use are a waste of valuable time for me at least.

But a deeper model of the vacuum like yours is precisely the kind of thing that lends physical meaning to "/\".

Yes, but what has that to do with Yilmaz? Nothing. From nothing comes nothing?

Without such interpretation, including such a cosmological term in the field equations is just a mathematical
possibility that may or may not agree with the data. If it agrees, we have no idea why it agrees -- unless we
attach a concrete "constructive" interpretation to the symbol, or justify it by deducing it from intuitively compelling "principles".

I have already solved this problem. Wake up out of your dogmatic slumbers. Again my argument in a nutshell.

1. Pre-inflationary globally-flat conformal group massless charges unstable choppy turbulent random foamy Dirac Sea micro-quantum vacuum needing large phase space volume from Pauli exclusion principle SANS GRAVITY & INERTIA COLLAPSES to the post-inflationary locally curved Diff(4 )x O(3,1)x Conformal Boosts x Dilation metastable pacific calm non-random un-foamy Higgs Ocean macro-quantum vacuum with a much smaller phase space volume and massive charged quasi-particles in agreement with Einstein's EEP on the equivalence of gravity and inertia. Only translation group in 4D i.e. T4 is locally gauged to Diff(4) in this MINIMAL MODEL that can be generalized only if there is factual evidence demanding it. Torsion, conformal boost and dilation compensating gauge force fields must wait in the wings and sit on the back benches.

2. Direction of irreversible flow of time synchronized with expansion of universe explained by the collapse of phase space in the initial pre-post inflation vacuum phase transition in 1.

3. Einstein's field equation for exotic vacuum

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

pops right out of the coherent rigid Goldstone phase of the Higgs Ocean LOCAL ODLRO order parameter.

The LOCALITY of macro-physics is automatically explained as an emergent property of micro-quantum nonlocality of the Pauli exclusion principle.

4. Dark energy and dark matter as the Two Faces of Janus - the same exotic vacuum residual zero point energy density pops right out of the intensity of the Higgs Ocean order parameter. The "two fluid model" shows

/\zpf = (Mc/h)^2[(h/Mc)^2|Higgs Ocean|^2 - 1]

M is the regulator mass of the effective c-number ODLRO macro-quantum field theory that contains Einstein's classical general relativity.

h/Mc is the short wave UV cutoff.

The emergence of Einstein's gravity is a kind of critical fixed point in a wavelet multi-resolution scale-dependent "renormalization group flow" where GCT is an emergent "More is different" space-time local symmetry replacing the globally flat translation symmetry generated by total Pu - the same one you look for below BTW.
All this is rough and I will say it more precisely as time goes by. This is a bit of precognitive remote viewing of the future idea creating itself in a globally self-consistent loop in time. As they say, ideas take on a life of their own - quite literally not only figuratively! That's what intuition is - ideas creating themselves BACK FROM THEIR OWN FUTURE Oroborus style. This is one of Matt Visser's time travel paradoxes deconstructed - see "Lorentzian Wormholes."

Ordinary vacuum means /\zpf = 0 with no gravity properties.

"Dark Energy" is /\zpf > 0 with negative micro-quantum pressure.

"Dark Matter" is /\zpf < 0 with positive micro-quantum pressure.

All is w = pressure/energy density = -1 as required from Lorentz covariance and EEP for ZPF.

This a_P is a centripetal acceleration from a rotating hollow halo of dark energy vacuum normal fluid of negative quantum pressure. This may be a hedgehog topological defect in the single-valued Higgs ocean local order parameter?

V(/\zpf) = c(recessional Hubble speed) is a neat looking conjecture I must say!

The universal acceleration is then

a_P = -dV(/\zpf)/dr = cH(t)

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

R(t) = FRW Scale Factor

This does look pretty.

It opens a clear path to the existence some underlying physical field which is not itself fundamentally :"chronogemetric" in character.

This is what I call a "neo-Lorentzian" model.

It's the HIGGS OCEAN! It's been in front of your nose since 2002. AKA "VACUUM COHERENCE".

I know that's your theory, Jack.

I'm not saying it's wrong.

It's looking better and better as each new fact comes in - including like white boys, dark matter detectors can't jump! I mean they can't click with The Right Stuff!

Also, I think my point is correct.

The total stress-energy tensor field of pure geometry is trivial. It's zero in ordinary vacuum. In general

Total tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv

Now when you split this into 2 pieces to get gravity waves and ask for their Pu global quantity - THEN AND ONLY THEN do you need that Pauli identity, pseudo-tensors etc. Yilmaz was confused about this.

I think you have this ass-backwards.

Show me. Why?

See below.

You ask for a global Pu quantity because it is *approximately frame-independent*, precisely since in Einstein GR no local frame-independent density is available.

You are confusing LOCAL with GLOBAL.

?

This Pu is only defined in an asymptotically 4D flat region. Then you can talk about an approximate global inertial frame like in SR 1905. Pu will be a 4-vector in this global frame in an approximate sense.

Pu comes from integrating a non-tensor that is only a far field piece of Guv. Pu is the stuff from gravity waves measured against the other near field piece of Guv integrand.

OBVIOUSLY only Guv(far field radiation non-tensor) PROPAGATES OUT TO THE GLOBALLY FLAT ASYMPTOTIC 4D space-time. It's all consistent. Yilmaz & Co have missed the beauty here in Einstein's Vision. You are worshipping The Golden Calf here Paul! This Yilmaz - Puthoff deviation from Einstein's Glorius Vision is Fool's Gold, a Chimera from the Sirens of Circe to seduce The Argonauts of Zar in Search of The Golden Fleece or The Grail to Doom! That is not how to part The Red Sea, i.e. how to make the Star Gate to Virgin Earths and escape The Lone Cheny and The Demented In-Bred Boy King's Corporate Fascism! I promise thee 73 Virgin Earths in the parallel universes next door in the hyperspace of Super Cosmos! If the Mythic Archetypes fit. Use them! ;-)

Then Pauli is also "confused" in the 1950s edition of his "Theory of Relativity".

No, I think Pauli would agree with me. Let's call Victoria Keen to a seance and get from the Horse's ...

You go to the GLOBAL quantity because it is *roughly* frame-independent, whereas the LOCAL quantity is
sensitively frame-dependent due to the inertial contribution to the field energy density.

Pu is a 4-vector. It's frame-dependent in the approximate Poincare group of asymptotic flat inertial frames. Pu is not a scalar.

How is this confused? Of course I am distinguishing between local and global quantities. But the local density can of course be integrated over a region to give a total energy-momentum supposedly contained in that region.

Yes, but it's not a Diff(4) tensor as I explained. That is the point.

The problem is, in Einstein GR, the energy-momentum content of a "small" region is extremely sensitive to the
choice of frame.

So what?

So with gravitational waves, we have what would appear to be a physical propagation process, which carries
energy-momentum through the vacuum, but to which we cannot attribute objective values of energy momentum
content for finite regions -- even for a gravitational pulse.

As you should know, Penrose published a whole essay on this bizarre feature of Einstein's theory in "Philosophy
of Vacuum" (1991).

Do you have a copy? I mean is that a book? I will get it.

Einstein's field equations are LOCAL. Pu is GLOBAL. tuv is LOCAL. There are ONLY LOCAL FRAMES.

I don't understand this. Of course there are global frames. Frames of reference are by their nature global. It is
the concept of a "local frame of reference" that is artificial -- it simply represents a voluntary restriction on the range of experiments that we *decide* to pay attention to, in order to get some kind of weak correspondence
relationship with SR.

No, you are wrong. Global frames only exist in special relativity. They do not exist in general relativity. Global frames require zero curvature over finite regions of space-time and then they can only be defined in those regions. There is an exception for the Hubble flow of the FRW metric that has a high symmetry on the coarse-grained large-scale of isotropy and homogeneity allowing timelike Killing vector fields of isometries that permit the preferred spacelike foliation where the big bang remnant black body radiation is maximally isotropic. This defines a global state of absolute rest if you like. We also have an absolute global time t as in R(t) measured by the temperature of this cosmic black body radiation. This is spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry of the Diff(4) covariant

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

vacuum field equation. This is like a ferromagnet with a spontaneous direction of magnetization breaking 3D rotational symmetry in a domain even though the basic action is rotationally invariant. Each ferromagnetic domain is like a Hubble universe on a single post-inflationary bubble.

What frame do you mean above? Define it carefully.

OBviously the local gravitational energy-momentum contained in a spacetime region depends on the frame of
reference in which it is computed, since in Einstein's theory the inertial forces make a contribution to this physical quantity -- and of course in Einstein's theory you can always find a frame in which these inertial forces *disappear*.

Only for a LIF at a point not large enough for Pu not globally. Therefore, what you write here is not even wrong. It's like explaining sleep as the dormitive power. You have not defined "frame of reference" here. No good. Without the math you are deluding yourself like Don Quixote.

This was all explicitly commented upon by Eddington as early as 1923!

Show me.

Now, do you really think that the gravitational energy contribution due to inertial forces locally self-gravitates?

Meaningless without the math.

I told you that the TOTAL local pure gravity stress-energy density tensor is

tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv

For ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 which is the only case discussed in MTW.

And if there is no localized gravitational stress-energy density, how does the energy of the gravitational
field act as it own source at every point, physically and objectively speaking?

You are babbling with the wrong questions.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler

There is so much wrong with this that I hardly know where to begin.

I agree. You are totally confused asking meaningless questions with no physical consequences at all. Prove me wrong with a definite counter-example mathematically precise enough. English alone ain't good enough!

But the point here is that in Einstein's theory *even the global quantities are frame-dependent*.

AS THEY SHOULD BE!

But the problem -- as stated by Pauli, no less -- is precisely that they *are*.

I think you have misread Pauli.

So how do you conclude that according to Pauli's account they "should be"?

That's your misreading of Pauli, who BTW was writing in 1921 and did not have it all that clearly back then either. No one did. Not even Einstein. Here is where Derrida's deconstruction into the creative tensions and complementarity paradoxes their texts might be helpful.

Seems like a contradiction.

"A paradox, a paradox, a most unusual paradox!"

"A nice dilemma, we have here, that calls for all our wit ..."

"In a contemplative fashion, and a tranquil frame of mind.
Free from every kind of passion, some solution we must find ...
Quest calm deliberation disentangles every knot."

Jack, this is all in Pauli 1923 in black and white.

Also Ruvwl need not vanish in LIF for EEP to be correct!

Of course not. But "EEP" is not the same as Einstein equivalence! It is MUCH weaker.

EEP the way I mean it formally is ALL you need to contact observation. The rest is excess verbal baggage even if Einstein used it as he developed the theory in the early days.

NO. This is the core of Einstein's actual theory.

Show me.

You are quite wrong about this, Jack.

Show me.

And that's precisely why there is an energy problem in GR.

There is no energy problem. That there appears to be an energy problem shows that one is looking at the problem in the not even wrong way. BTW what make you think energy is fundamental?

This is where you still seem to be confused about the actual nature of my critical arguments.

EEP simply means use covariant derivatives in the LNIF and use ordinary partial derivatives in the LIF coincident with it. That's all!

But I think I can now show that this is all barking up the wrong tree.

Meaningless statement unless you can predict something new with it.

Well, you could say the same about Einstein vs. Lorentz. From my POV there is a very close and instructive
analogy here.

You have turned my point upside down. No one uses Lorentz POV today. It is not needed for any phenomenon - at least so far that have been replicated by independent reputable labs. You have, for example, claims of the Galilean electrodynamicists none of which seem to be reliable so far.

The transition LNIF --> LIF has nothing directly to do with
general coordinate transformations, or with the actual (mathematically defined) Levi-Civta connection field, but with an *analog* of this
field that by definition carries physical meaning -- which the mathematically defined transformations do not.

I think you are wrong. Show me the math.

LNIF LIF is the Tetrad.

LNIF LNIF' is GCT

LIF LIF' is O(1,3)

So we have a "triangle" of mappings.

You are not addressing the point.

In order to go LNIF --> LIF, for any observer, we have to *physically change the observer's worldline*.

Obviously! Why is that a problem for you?

How does the (arbitrary) choice of the system of mathematical coordinates in spacetime physically change
*any* observer's worldline? What's the connection?

As I said, that is the wrong question!

Whether or not world lines are geodesic or non-geodesic is physical independent of the arbitrary choice of local coordinates. Whether or not an extended object is rotating about its center of mass that may be on a geodesic, e.g. Pioneer 10 and 11 with all rocket motors off, is also purely physical. If you are in a LIF then you are weightless. This is physical and you do not need any coordinates at all. Strain gauges will stay at their null points. Obviously there are convenient choices of local coordinates. Although the choice is arbitrary, bad choices require more computational effort! This is usually left out of the interpretations BTW. You want to minimize algorithmic complexity & depth etc. in the choice of local coordinates. You always want to find local tensor quantities for all PHYSICAL OBSERVABLES. Now since quantum gravity is an illusion I am not worried about the nonlocal observables needed for orthodox quantum gravity that is a pseudo-problem - well maybe. I might be wrong. That is my position for today.

You do not need tetrads to deal with this question.. Let's keep it simple, transparent, and intuitive.

This is polemics. You are not saying anything scientific here. The tetrads are the compensating gauge force fields from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group. The non-trivial part of them, that is not the Kronecker delta Iu^a is like the distortion field away from a perfect crystal lattice. You might say that the tetrads are the non-inertial forces you are looking for. Actually they are "strains" away from global flatness.

eu(LNIF) = ea(LIF)Iu^a + (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

Note when there is no macro-quantum rigid Goldstone phase, i.e. when ODLRO vanishes, there is no trace of curvature/gravity

For N = 1 this is almost obvious. For the U(1) arbitrary phase function @, the GCT Jacobian matrix is obviously

Xu^u' = @,u',u

where locally

x^u' = xu'(x^u)

For U(N) there will be the Lie algebra matrix generators to trace over. It can be done. A hedgehog topological exotic defect apparently seen in the Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly. The hedgehog has constant gradient vector field between the two concentric spheres!

a_P = cH back to Sun

where

V(zpf) = cHr = c^2/\zpfr^2

That is the root Einsteinian confusion that I believe I have identified as the source of all these problems (non-localizable field energy density, "problem of general covariance", etc.).

I think you are not even wrong here. I cannot really tell until I see your math for this.

I told you that based on an isomorphism the math looks exactly the same on paper -- but it refers to a completely
different set of transformations.

So you seem to be going around in circles here.

No, you are not showing what you have. You are hand waving. Without the math what you say is meaningless.

In any case, I will explain all this in painful detail in due course (as of course I must).

"Nonlocalizable" is ONLY for GLOBAL Pu from a PIECE of total LOCAL tensor

Huh?

As far as I know, the stress-energy density of the gravitational field in Einstein's theory is frame-dependent, and thus
cannot be integrated to give an objective frame-indepedennt physical energy-momentum content for typical finite
spacetime regions.

This is the problem as stated by Pauli in 1921.

As far as I can see, the "global Pu" is simply a fudge.

tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

This nonlocalizable issue is only important for gravity wave detection!

Not according to Pauli 1921, as re-edited in1956. It is a fundamental problem.

Also for Penrose 1991.

Incidentally, the 1990s review article I mentioned on the "problem of general covariance" is by J. D. Norton: "General covariance
and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades of dispute", Rep. Prog. Phys. 56 (1993), 791-858. Worth a read IMO.

I am sure it is. When I have world enough and time. Do you have it digital? Please send it.

I have a copy. If I make you another copy, will you read it?

Yes - eventually. Right now I am excited that Pioneer anomaly is an exotic vacuum hedgehog exotic vacuum defect. I am the first to understand this.

This is a 67-page review article, without any new mathematics, by an acknowledged expert in the field, endorsed by Rovelli, which
goes over the entire history of this long-running controversy, and does not offer any definitive resolution to the problem.

So if talk on this subject is cheap, there is plenty of "cheap talk" around in the established journals.

Yes, but my point here Paul is that almost all the pure theory papers today on arXiv that are not trying to understand real observations are a bad bet to waste time on.

You may be right. In fact my impression is that most of the foundational discussions on GR are indeed a waste of time
since they are barking up the wrong trees.

That doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions.

The reason I have this attitude closely echoes Feynman in his "Lectures on Gravitation".

Remember, Feynman didn't buy Einstein equivalence either.

Show me. I think you are misreading there.

It's what Bohm called fragmented thinking. They have no real physical ideas and are Cargo Cultists hoping that this or that pretty arcane pure mathematical idea will bear physical fruit. Max Tegmark has elevated this to Level IV Super Platonism.

Actually, I don't disagree. I'm trying to stay as close as possible to the nitty-gritty.

I predict that 99% of the pure theory papers on arXiv will be forgotten 20 years from now assuming there is anyone left on Earth then if Lone Cheney's Halliburton Gangsters continue to rape and pillage the environment like a Plague of Locusts.

I don't doubt it.

PS did you see from one of the Boy King's Harvard Professors:

> One of Tsurumi's standout students was Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., now
> the
> seventh-ranking member of the House Republican leadership. "I typed him
> as a conservative Republican with a conscience," Tsurumi said. "He
> never
> confused his own ideology with economics, and he didn't try to hide his
> ignorance of a subject in mumbo jumbo. He was what I call a principled
> conservative." (Though clearly a partisan one. On Wednesday, Cox called
> for a congressional investigation of the validity of documents that CBS
> News obtained for a story questioning Bush's attendance at Guard duty
> in
> Alabama.)
>
> Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi
> said. "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when
> challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying
> something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students
> jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular
> comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that." A
> White House spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking comment.